The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1887-02-11
THE LICENSE QUESTION.

On Monday afternoon when licenses
were before court, Judges Murphy and
McHenry on the bench, E. H. Little,
Esq, presented general remonstrance
against the licensing of any place in
Columbia county to sell intoxicating
liquors: because we believe that
most Of the pauperism, want, aud deg.
relation in our land is the result OF the
use of alcoholic liquors; because of the
testimony of eminent and experienced
judges of courts that four. r.fifths of the
crimes committed are caused directly
or indirectly by the use of alcoholic
liquors; and because we have been
encouraged by the action of judges in
other districts, who have listened to
remonstrances and have refused to
grant licenses" Mr.. Little said that
this petition to the honorable the
judges of the quarter sessions If the
peace was siened by two thousand
three hundred ninety seven citizens
three hundred and seventy-three child
rem between fifteen and twenty -one
years of age, one thousand one hun
dred twenty-seven women and eight
hundred ninety seven voters; that the
return was from forty-four out of a
hundred and thirty Sunday schools in
the county, and that upon the same
ratio the toUal of signers would include
about one-half the voters of the county,
the total vote for governor having
been less than six thousand; that sever
al judges in the western counties of the
state had refused to grant any licenses,
and that the supreme court held that
the matter was entirely in the discre-
ton of the court of quarter sessions.
In proof, he cited the late decision
called Reeds appeal, in which
the supreme court say that the intent
of the legislature iD their act of 22d
March, 1867, is very clearly expressed
and ought not to be misunderstood !;
that the court in each county is to
hear petitions for or remonstrances
against an application for licenses, and
is to refuse the license whenever, in
their opinion, having due regard to the
number and character of the petition
ers for and against such application,
such license--nGt hotels not neces-
sary to the entertainment of strangers
and travellers. The petition must be
special, not general, otherwise il may
be disregarded. The petitioners may
be male or female citizens, not neces-
sarily voters.
Although the remonstrance was
general and not filed seven days be-
foro the first day of the term, Mr..
Little argued that it might be received
and considered, the rule applying only
where the character of the applicant
or the sufficiency of his equipment is
attacked, and the supreme court not
excluding general petition or remon.
STRANGE, but saying that it may be dis
regarded, thus implying that it may
not be.
Geo. E. Elwell, Esq, representing
an applicant, replied, citing the recent
opinion-December last, first since
Reeds appeal-of Judge Alfred Hand
of Scranton, holding that under Reeds
appeal remonstrance not filed in the
particular case according to rule of court
must be disregarded that ths court
must judge of the alleged necessity for
the license solely by the number and
character of the petitioners and remon-
stfants-male or female-inquiring by
evidence only of the character of the
applicant and the fitness of his house !;
and that, therefore, the number of
houses already licensed is not to be
considered, the responsibility resting
on the people, who determine by their
signatures the necessity.
John G. Yocum, Esq. representing
an applicant for an old stand, quoted
three sections of the court-rules, and
objecced that it would be unfair, in
violation of those sections, to require
an applicant to meet, without notice
and unprepared, an attack by way of
general remonstrance.
@. G. Barkley, Esq, representing
the application of Mr.. Tubbs for a re-
newal of license for the Exchange
hotel in Bloomsbury, called the atten-
tion of the judges to the fact that,
while an individual might, if he saw fit,
keep temperance house for the enter
tainment of the travelling public, yet,
under the law as it now stands, no
stranger or traveller has the right to
CLAIM meal or lodging or any enter
tainment except from the landlord of
licensed house. lie did not propose to
discuss the evils of intemperance, nor
to present to the court, which would be
bound to disregard it, his individual
opinion ia advance Of the decision of
the people, as to the proper remedy for
those evils; the question was one now
widely sgitating the public mind.
until the people shall have